Box Office: Why Tom Hanks' 'Inferno' Was A Domestic Disaster

It is entirely possible that Sony’s Inferno ends up making enough money outside of North America to be relatively profitable or at least break-even. The picture debuted two weeks before its domestic opening and has thus far earned $132 million overseas for a current $147m worldwide total. The Ron Howard-directed film cost $75m to produce, so it doesn’t necessarily have to be a mega blockbuster to avoid losing money.

But it is, unquestionably, a domestic apocalypse. The third Robert Langdon adventure, based on the Dan Brown novel of the same name, debuted this past weekend with just (as of this writing) $15 million. At this juncture, it will be fortunate its total domestic cume matches just the $46m opening weekend of the last such offering, Angels & Demons from 2009.

Young moviegoers didn’t care, and older moviegoers either didn’t care anymore or made a mental note to wait for Redbox. Yes, the reviews were lousy (4.4 out of 10 average critic score on Rotten Tomatoes) but the notices were not much worse than the previous two (4.7 and 5.1 out of 10). And no, it wasn’t the Halloween weekend, as audiences were willing to show up for the likes of Puss in Boots, Michael Jackson This Is It and any number of Saw sequels.

'Inferno' image courtesy of Sony and Columbia

The reason for this relative box office failure is relatively straightforward: Inferno bombed at the North American box office because domestic audiences didn’t want to see it. I know that sounds like a fairly obvious statement. But it bears worth noting, especially in an era where we see copious franchise revivals in one form or another.

Inferno was an example of a once mighty franchise whose time had passed. As we’re learning a lot this year, just because a franchise once was popular doesn’t mean the demand and interest are still there. And franchise fandom was all this one had to offer. It's a stark example of what I consider the be the defining lesson of 2016: Regarding theatrical moviegoing, especially in North America, awareness does not equal interest.

On paper, I would almost argue that Sony didn’t do anything wrong.

They brought back the (still bankable) star (Tom Hanks), the director (Ron Howard) and one of the screenwriters (David Koepp adapted Inferno and was the co-writer on Angels & Demons with Akiva Goldsman who in turn adapted The Da Vinci Code) from the previous films. They brought on a rising star (Felicity Jones) as the female lead and even managed to deliver a relatively big-scale chase thriller at a comparatively bargain-basement $75 million.

That’s half the budget of Angels & Demons. Said budget downgrade arguably accounted for a likely box office downturn. Sure, they couldn’t expect the $485 million worldwide gross of Angels & Demons let alone the $758m cume of The Da Vinci Code). But this was a much cheaper film. They sold the sequel as they would any movie, with trailers, TV spots, social media content and the usual “viral” promotional appearances.

They even opened the film overseas first knowing that it would probably strike harder outside of America and create a positive media narrative. But domestic audiences weren’t interested in another go-around of Robert Langdon and his (unfortunately) interchangeable female cohort running around the world unlocking clues to historical or religiously-based puzzles to save the day. And since this third film didn’t bring anything new or different to the table, there was a reason for non-fans or former fans to embrace this new picture.

It was “more of the same,” which is fine if you liked and wanted more of its ilk. But the entirety of the draw was “come see another variation on this adventure that you once enjoyed.” But there just wasn’t enough of an existing/energized fan base for this particular property, and thus we have a relatively disappointing debut weekend.

Consumers may have loved Hanks’ Saturday Night Live appearance. They instantly turned David S. Pumpkins into a viral smash, but laughing at Hanks’s shtick no in way motivated audiences to pay to see a Tom Hanks thriller that otherwise didn’t interest them. There remains a disconnect between tangentially-related social media publicity and actual consumer interest for actual ticket buyers. Going viral isn’t the same as selling tickets.

As long as the studio system at-large continues to try to revive once-mighty franchises on a regular basis, this kind of thing is going to happen periodically. While Inferno may eventually make money/break even thanks to overseas muscle, it can still serve as another 2016 cautionary tale. The franchise revivals that hit it big are the ones that don’t depend entirely on franchise loyalty to entice moviegoers.

To use an obvious example, Universal/Comcast Corp.'s Jurassic World was sold/presented in a way to be just as enticing to those indifferent to the franchise as it was to Jurassic Park fans. Ditto Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc. and MGM's Creed and Walt Disney's The Force Awakens. The casualties are going to be the likes of 20th Century Fox's Independence Day: Resurgence, Paramount/Viacom Inc.'s Terminator: Genisys and Paramount's Zoolander, No. 2, which promise “more of the same” with little new being brought to the table. Inferno promised “exactly what you liked back in 2006 and 2009.”

Because there was nothing new/different brought to the table, no added value elements or twists in the formula, there was no defense against consumers no longer being excited about said franchise. The entire pitch for Inferno was “if you wanted more along the lines of Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code…” And due to the strong overseas opening, the robust Sully box office and my interest in these kinds of old-school potboilers, I thought the North American fan base was big enough. But it wasn’t, at least not in America.

If you like what you're reading, follow @ScottMendelson on Twitter, and "like" The Ticket Booth on Facebook. Also, check out my archives for older work HERE.

I've studied the film industry, both academically and informally, and with an emphasis in box office analysis, for 28 years. I have extensively written about all of said subjects for the last ten years. My outlets for film criticism, box office commentary, and film-skewing ...